In the dialogue that we have recently relaunch with politicians, it has become clear that for them: there is no other form of rationality than the scientific form scientific reason . And this responds to a deeply root contemporary sensitivity, particularly among politicians on the social order. This is certainly most often a matter of idealism in politics, of short-sight scientism, but it is also, more or less, an important legacy, that of the Enlightenment and the dream of universal man. Is this not what Lacan so aptly call “the generalization of the effects of knowlge” to designate the fundamental modification inaugurat by modern science and the headless knowlge that dominates us and infiltrates all categories of social ties. So attacking this power, wanting to dismiss it, would not make much sense.
Rather ask ourselves at new costs how
to make use of science for psychoanalysis? By emphasizing more strongly that psychoanalysis is not detach from its reference, but also by drawing on other perspectives of scientificity that question science itself and challenge phone number list the ideal of justification. I am thinking of perspectives in the wake of those of Imre Lakatos or Feyerabend with his Against the Method , who have renew the debate on proof by questioning rationalist and justificationist epistemologies that only accept demonstrat and proven legal marketing consulting: boost your firm now! propositions, by opposing the singularity of facts to the universality of theory. Feyerabend in particular in his Against the Method , shows that science is a profoundly anarchic field in which the proliferation of theories is always beneficial to science (Chinese micine
It is important to find and expand
our relays in this field as well. I am also thinking of Olivier Rey who, in his latest work Quand le monde se fait nombre (When the world becomes a number), questions as a mathematician the empire of statistics (of the statistical standard that will undoubtly be debat at Pipol) and questions in particular its entry into the scientific field. He shows that this empire tends to rule institutions and dominate politics, a reign be numbers under which the unemploy disappear behind the unemployment curve.
In short, to make it understood that psychoanalysis is no less scientific than science itself, which is only so in knowing its own limits. At the very least, to use and be cunning bas on the semblances of expertise and epistemic and clinical respectability.